Gordon Brown steps down

In a day of fast-moving developments, Gordon Brown has announced that he is stepping down as Labour leader and hopes that a new leader can be in place by the party conference in September: Brown

The announcement removes one major impediment to a Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition, but it may also encourage the Conservatives to try and seal the deal with the Liberal Democrats. Any 'rainbow' or 'traffic light' coalition would have a very thin majority. The case for a further election in the autumn would be strengthened by the fact that there would be another 'unelected' prime minister - although the British system is not a presidential one but seeks to elect a party to govern.

We can now expect manoeuvring to begin among potential candidates. David Miliband is the obvious Blairite candidate, but some think more highly of his brother Ed. Harriet Harman may be tempted to stand, but will Alan Johnson put his hat in the ring?

So we shall have a lot of political manoeuvring which will do nothing to tackle the problems facing the economy.

Was this Gordon's Ed Muskie moment?

Bigotgate is all over the media this morning. I have been on local radio and Gillian's nephew has been interviewed by Radio 5. Even local television stations in Delaware have been carrying the story and yesterday live media was focused on her front door while Gordon was inside for 40 minutes, giving the door 'a door of the day' award on the BBC's campaign show. Is this one of these 24 hour media storms that will soon subside or will it be seen as a defining moment in the campaign?

I was reminded of an incident in the 1972 presidential election campaign in the US. Ed Muskie was a front runner for the Democratic nomination and would probably have made a better job of challenging Nixon than McGovern. On the stump in New Hampshire he appeared to break down and cry over accusations that he had insulted French speakers and in response to slurs on his wife. He said that he had got snowflakes in his eyes, but the damage was done. Seeing Gordon Brown with his hands over his eyes as the damaging tape was played back to him brought back the memories of Muskie.

It seems to me that this is damaging to the faltering Labour campaign on two levels. First, Gordon Brown raised the issue of character himself and this brings to the surface once again issues about his personality which have been around for years. Andrew Rawnsley was milking the story to promote his book and its relevations about Gordon's temper tantrums on the BBC campaign show last night for all he was worth.

Second, it brings to the surface the East European immigration issue which is damaging to Labour. One could argue that the wave of immigration brought in cheap, hard working employees who gave an impetus to economic growth. But many voters see competition for jobs and housing and pressure on public services. Labour could have imposed transitional arrangements as other member states did: the fact that many of them did increased the pressure on Britain as a destination, although English as a widely spoken language would have been a factor anyway. Labour are open to the charge that they closed the stable door after the horse had bolted.

I am no fan of Harriet Harman but she made a dignified attempt to defend Gordon on the campaign show last night. Her argument was that all of us have said things in private in anger or irritation that we would have regretted if the remarks had been made public. No doubt some electors will be forgiving. Others have a negative view of Gordon Brown already and these events simply reinforce that.

Labour tried to retrive the situation as best as it could and those aides who recommended a personal apology were surely correct. Gillian has hired a public relations agency and the Sun interviewed her but decided it wasn't worth pursuing the story.

In order to stop Labour's campaign imploding, Gordon Brown needs to put on a stellar performance in tonight's debate. The economy is at least an area in which he can sound authoritative, while Dave Cameron is open to attack on VAT and Nick Clegg's grasp of economics is not as sure as that of Vince Cable. For undecided voters, this is likely to be the decision point.

The plot that failed

It now appears that Geoff Hoon and Patricia Hewitt, or 'Dim and Dumb' as one newspaper has called them, thought that up to six Cabinet ministers would come out to support their attempt to unseat Gordon Brown: Plot

Quite why they thought cabinet ministers would be willing to put their heads up the parapet when they haven't in the past is unclear, particularly given that Geoff Hoon is a former Chief Whip and should understand the parliamentary party. Perhaps the person who posted in response to an editorial in The Guardian had a point: 'I'd alway's thought Hoon was a "bit" dim, but after his appearance on Newsnight tonight I'd have to upgrade that to "thick as two short planks", qualified with "mind bogglingly naive".'

There are quite a few losers from this failed attempt. Gordon Brown had David Cameron on the back foot in PMQs yesterday, but now Labour once again can be presented as a divided party that is more interested in internal in fighting than the many problems that face the country. One of the problems is that Gordon is clearly in a state of denial over public expenditure cuts, thinking that a growth miracle that no one else believes in can stave them off or at least reduce their impact.

As Trevor Kavanagh of the Sun - one of our best political correspondents - pointed out on Radio 5 this morning David Miliband comes out of this badly. His endorsement of the prime minister, PSA prize winner Kavanagh pointed out, amounted to saying 'I am in the government as foreign secretary and working on my boxes.' Once again he has shown himself unable to wield the knife, something that has already finished off the hopes of fading star Alan Johnson. Of course, the problem is that if you wield the knife you may debar yourself from the prize, Michael Heseltine being the prime example.

Increasingly this looks like an exhausted government that has run out of ideas and has lost the collective will to live. The risk for Labour is that whoever becomes Leader of the Opposition may inherit a shattered and divided party. Even Harriet Harman with her aristocratic iciness and her trade union credentials might find that a poisoned chalice.

Mandy's in charge (almost)

Seems there was a bit of hiatus between Harriet Harman letting go the reins of power and Peter Mandelson taking over. Harriet jetted off on holiday on Thursday to some surprise (The Times cruelly suggested that this was the only date when there were enough seats available business class to Pisa).

Meanwhile, Peter Mandelson was still sunning himself at the Rothschild villa in Corfu, although not this year in the company of George (formerly Gideon) Osborne. So the country was left without anyone running it, but no visible harm has yet occurred. Indeed it is a relief to get away from Harriet Harman's relentless, almost aggressive, pursuit of her agenda. Whether it has done Labour is any good is a moot point.

The Conservatives are intending to block the legislation that would allow Mandy to resign his peerage and stand again for the House of Commons. I find this a bit odd as I would say that Alan Johnson is more of a threat to them. However, one can never be sure. I was on a train in London yesterday and there was a group of young lads talking and one of them said, 'That Peter Mandelson seems a nice bloke' (although one of them was surprised to learn that he was gay).

As for Gordon his holiday is apparently going to include some volunteering on a worthy community project so no lightening up there. The shadow of the manse is a long one.

Harman: men do find me difficult

In an interview with the Evening Standard Harriet Harman admitted that her strident attitude made some men uncomfortable. She commented, 'I do think that I want to see change for the better - and change is sometimes difficult for people if they don't want to see change.' Asked which of her traits were disliked by men, she said 'Perhaps not taking no for an answer.'

According to the report, Ms Harman seemed hurt by her nickname 'Hattie Harperson' invented by enemies to lampoon her feminism.

Ms Harman insisted that she was only 'coordinating the team' and that Gordon Brown was in charge. However, her remarks since she became 'coordinator' have been something of an own goal. Edwina Currie described her as representative of a particular type of affluent, over educated woman.

Some electoral research does show that there is an anti-feminist dimension in the electorate. If equality of opportunity arguments are presented in the wrong way, the result can be counter productive.

There is also a much broader problem about the under achievement of younger males in comparison to women. This is a big topic, but they do need positive role models and a recognition that they are worthwhile members of society.

Who is in charge?

When Lord Mandelson became First Secretary of State (a title once held by the late George Brown) we were told that in effect he was deputy prime minister. But as Gordon Brown goes on holiday in the Lake District we are told that Harriet Harman is running the country.

She has taken the opportunity to demand that one of the Labour leaders in future must always be a woman. This did not get a sympathetic hearing in the media with ITV (a woman reporter) using the politically incorrect 'Harriet Harperson' joke. No doubt the aristocrat from Dulwich would see this as further evidence of sexism in British politics.

Meanwhile, rumours persist that Mandy will take advantage of new legislation to resign as a peer so that he can become Labour leader. The Labour Finance and Industry Group, made up of wealthy donors, has threatened to cut off funding to Labour unless Gordon Brown goes.

This is objectionable on a number of fronts. Wealthy individuals should not deciding who leads a political party. For me it reaffirms my view that the business class and the political class should be kept apart. The rapid disappearance of the business 'goats' from Gordon Brown's government confirms this view.

We first heard in the 1960s that the country should be run as a company, Great Britain Ltd., with business persons bringing their gift for efficiency to the table. Most of them quickly learn that the problems in politics are far more complex and intractable. Moreover, your instructions are not carried out to the extent that they would be in a business.

The Labour Finance and Industry Group also called for Mandy to replace Gordon. This again shows their lack of judgment. Mandy is a very smart political operator, probably the smartest we have around at the moment. But that does not qualify him to lead the country. His grandfather, Herbert Morrison, had many of the same qualities, but he was out smarted by Attlee in his attempts to become prime minister.

Gordon Brown is now as unpopular as John Major was when he left office, but in many ways he is a more tragic figure. People thought that Major was a weak prime minister, but they generally regarded him as a likeable person. Today he makes occasional pronouncements as an elder statesmen whilst enjoying his cricket.

So who will succeed Gordon Brown when he leaves the back door of Downing Street and Dave Cameron comes through the front? I doubt whether it will be Mandy. Harriet Harman has a coalition of support and could come through a crowded field. Perhaps it will be man on the make Andy Burnham? Or Labour could go for the equivalent of Pope Benedict and choose the Home Secretary Alan Johnson.

For some observations on Harriet Harman's remarks by John Prescott go here: Prezza